It’s often said that a small, dedicated group of people can make a large impact.
Last week’s protest by 10 members of Bruin Republicans was not one of those times.
The organization staged a protest last week against UCLA’s new general education requirement, which would have students take a course about inequalities based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and religion, among other factors beginning next year. You could count the number of protesters on your hands.
The protest comes on the heels of a faculty petition calling for a revote to include all faculty, whether or not the proposal affects their classes. The faculty revote presents a real threat to the requirement’s passage this year, but this is nothing new – opposition to the diversity requirement has never been lacking from professors.
The Bruin Republicans protest, however, betrays an even more baffling inability by fellow students to understand and relate to their peers. Students have been working for decades to implement this requirement; it’s a vital reform that will eventually pass despite petty and illegitimate objections from small segments of the student body.
Other than UC Merced, UCLA is the final holdout in the University of California when it comes to a diversity requirement. The UC’s second-oldest undergraduate school and the school that consistently breaks records for the number of applicants it receives needs to join the other schools and take this step forward.
There’s no need to repeat how helpful it could be or why we need to foster understanding between diverse communities on campus. But apparently, some people just cannot be convinced. The small number of students at the demonstration proves how the campus feels about this issue.
The dissenting students are trying to work against a popular new policy that has already gained traction with a decent number of faculty members in the College of Letters and Sciences, the college which will be the most directly affected by the requirement and already passed the proposal in October. Progress doesn’t always receive unanimous praise, but such a small group of contrarians can’t maintain the status quo.
On top of having weak arguments, the opposition is late in voicing its concerns. Bruin Republicans had the opportunity to engage in constructive conversation before the requirement came to a vote. Undergraduate Students Association Council Academic Affairs Commissioner Allyson Bach said her office held a number of town hall meetings and workshops ahead of the original faculty vote in October to go over the specifics of the proposal. If these concerns were legitimate, the AAC would have been able to advocate for certain changes.
Bach added that, despite efforts to reach out to students through online campaigns and other means, not a single student from Bruin Republicans voiced any concerns before the vote. If the organization truly cared about being constructive, they would have worked with the AAC and other entities beforehand rather than react to what they think is an unfair decision.
Bruin Republicans is making an effort to go up against decades of student advocacy with a number of fallacious arguments, most of which deal with freedom of choice and all of which can be dismantled with little to no effort.
One of Bruin Republicans’ major problems with the requirement is that it does not give students the option to choose what classes to take. But this argument is ridiculous considering that students already have to take certain classes to fulfill general education requirements whether they want to or not. The diversity requirement is no different. Not to mention, the push for a diversity requirement was student-led. This was, in fact, our choice.
The few that showed up to the protest also raised concerns over getting into the classes that fulfill the new diversity requirement because of the possibility of overcrowding, implying that the requirement will hinder our academic freedom. But the Diversity Initiative Implementation Committee reported that 65 social science classes and 22 humanities classes would likely satisfy the requirement. Of the 122 syllabi submitted for the report, only 12 did not appear to fill the diversity criteria. It is clear that there will not be an extraordinary shortage in options for students when it comes to choosing a diversity-related course. The opposition’s arguments just don’t hold up.
Even if the revote strikes down the requirement this year, its institutionalization somewhere down the line is inevitable. Ten students voicing their opposition will eventually become a laughable footnote in a process that has become far too drawn out.
Bruin Republicans has the right to continue to protest. However, UCLA and the student body have the right to ignore what is an embarrassing attempt to hold the university back, an effort which will ultimately prove fruitless.
What an inane and pointless argument. The writer’s whole argument is that it is wrong to oppose the diversity requirement because it is a minority opinion? Since when was it tautologically true that disagreeing with the majority, bucking the trend made you automatically wrong? How about addressing or even presenting the actual arguments — that the diversity requirement is purely another politically correct institution to force ethnic grievances onto a student population that is already force-fed leftist cliches? If anything, this sad lock-step, conformist argument is a perfect example of why less left-wing indoctrination would be a good thing.
The minority opinion is that humans are tasty and cannibalism should be legal on campus. By the logic of this immature piece, cannibalism must be allowed. Sometimes the most absurd examples make a fine point about principal.
“Diversity” = code word for anti-white racism.